Besides the fact that I, as far as physical nature is concerned, believe in stationary Earth which can be seen, depending on the metric or more broadly the topology employed, as the physical centre of the physical world.

So your naming Bellarmine as a target of my criticism is misplaced, as are your assumptions about my beliefs (again based in false dichotomies created by your crypto-materialist views)

But I know the level of your “research” into physics and arguments. Apropos Einstein, you quote extensively as authorities the work of two “social scientists”, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, who are notorious Social Constructivists and epistemological relativists, N.M. Gwynne, whose only qualifications are in languages and accounting, and Alfred Arthur Lynch, a dilettante engineer and politician.

I state this not as an ad homiem but point to these facts because no actual arguments are given, merely statements like “General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense;” which amount to nothing more than appeals to their non-existent authority. Tensor calculus and differential geometry involve no major challenge to the intellect? I’m pretty sure every third year physics student I have ever known, including myself, would respectfully disagree. Again, no actual argument is ever made by you. Not one set of equations of motions is ever presented or solved: just scoffing at one thing after another, especially at any mathematics, without any logical structure linking one to the next and to a deductive conclusion.

And I don’t even say these things as a believer in “Big Bang cosmology”.

In fact, I’m a young Earth creationist who takes Genesis very seriously as a divinely revealed cosmogonic treatise that is not to be interpreted “allegorically”. I just don’t interpret it as a crypto-materialist. But then you obviously can’t get your head around what that means.

If you wrote your comments in plain English, then others might know better your beliefs theosist. Why don't you come down to our level and then maybe we can understand what you are on about. To read you are a geocentrist (in our language) is a surprise, especially after calling us like minded believers, 'idiots.'

Bellarmine was not an 'apple' geocentrist, but one of us, the physical earth stationary with the sun, moon and stars turning about us. He meant it as we see it.

As regards Einstein, well I quote those I have reasoned who speak the truth and give the facts. But you begin your defence by immediately using the old ad hominem ploy, attack the person, that they are not 'educated' in Einstein's physics, so what could they know. After that the ad homeners hope what they say is put in doubt. You also confirm my point that if Einstein can be placed above the intelligence of most, with a few only that can reach that level of understanding, then what he writes cannot be challenged by the likes of Gwynne or me. Well I do not buy that and I thank the Gwynnes and van der Kamps of this world for showing us the truth. I have long come to the conclusion that your average human capable of thinking when it is pointed out that Einstein's theories are rubbish. But the secular world needs an Einstein to keep their heliocentrisdm alive, and the intellectually proud need something they can boast of understanding, so they are the only ones who get employed these days in the science of cosmology and 'theoretical' physics.

When I said that the STR is nonsense to the intellect, and has been falsified so often it gets boring, I do so as a statement. If any want to challenge that, let them do so. Yes, even you can try. When I write it is simple nonsense, then someone should reply back saying show me. I am hardly going to make statements like that without being able to back them up, even using words that 'idiots' can understand.

For example, the STR's Light and Mass. First I will quote from a book called Special Relativity, the University text by Wolfgang Ridler. Here is a question asked of your third year university students.

Question 12: A man carrying a horizontal 20ft long pole runs ata speed v such that y(v)=2 into a 10foot long room and closes the door. Explain in the man's frame, in which the room is only 5ft long, how this is possible.

Now this may be possible for your 'third year physics students' to swallow, but for me at any rate, a man carrying a 20 foot pole cannot get in to a 10 foot long room and close the door behing him unless it is 20 ft wide. But they mean a 10 ft square room. Having done that they are then getting a 20 ft pole into a 5ft long room. Now this is nonsense, nay, simple nonsense, no matter if you can invent a maths to get it done.

Just one more aspecrt of the STR to show it is nonsense,
TIME DILATION FACTOR.
As the speed increases, time slows down. ‘This can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on Earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster.’ Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the falsification of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads.’ Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shrodinger and Bridgman. Dingle’s ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. To his credit, Dingle had his own ‘eureka’ moment and saw the errors in Einstein’s theory.

The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, Einstein’s relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on Earth; it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.

‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.’ --- A.S. Eddington.


Hopefully I have shown readers anyway, that Einstein's STR is nonsense, even if you Theosist and all those poor third year students think it is intellectually marvellous stuff.

Question 12: A man carrying a horizontal 20-ft long pole runs at a speed v such that y(v)=2 into a 10-foot long room and closes the door. Explain in the man's frame, in which the room is only 5-ft long, how this is possible.

The man is running extremely fast, such that y(v) refers to a function of v which equals 2. The function could be one that answers the question, "How many times the speed of light is this variable (v)?" or some such relation, wherein the room appears to the man to be half as long as it is described such that 10/2 = 5 ("in the man's frame" of reference). In any event, the man's speed is far too great for him to have time to stop once he enters the room, and consequently, his entire body along with the pole he carries, is splattered onto the wall at the far end of the tiny (5-foot long) room, which wall angles slightly toward the back side of the partially opened door, this entrance door only part way swung open INTO the room, such that the emanating effusion of random body particles and pole fragments being splashed in the room hits the back side of the door first, causing it to close before said splashing material has had a chance to slow the door down and/or to keep it from closing. End of story.
P.S. A man's body is the man and the man's body is composed of the sum of its parts. While the man may not have consciously closed the door, the man's body parts by pushing the door caused it to close, the sum of the man's body parts being the man, therefore, the man closed the door. QED.

A similar solution was given for a problem that asked, how to determine the physical height of the leaning tower of Pisa using only a barometer.
The answer was, climb to the top of the tower and using a stopwatch, carefully and precisely time how long it takes for the perfectly good barometer falling to the ground, to smash into a bazillion pieces. Then use that time to find the distance fallen, with the acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, by way of the formula, s = ut + 1/2 at² -- where s is the distance, u is an initial velocity, a the acceleration, and t is time. If starting from rest the first term can be ignored giving:  s = 1/2 at². Therefore a three-second fall (where t² = 3² = 9 sec²) becomes (1/2)(32)(9) = 144 ft.

NEIL: Really enjoyed your explanation as to how a man carrying a 20 foot pole can get into a 10 foot square room and closed the door behind him. No 'idiot' there, is there? You could be up for the next Nobel prize for physics with it Neil.

But back to the influence this nonsense has on other things. Here is more Special Theory of Relativity nonsense just for Theosist:

---

NEIL: Really enjoyed your explanation as to how a man carrying a 20 foot pole can get into a 10 foot square room and closed the door behind him. No 'idiot' there, is there? You could be up for the next Nobel prize for physics with it Neil.

But back to the influence this nonsense has on other things. Here is more Special Theory of Relativity nonsense just for Theosist:

The Clock Fraud

‘Experiments carrying atomic clocks around the Earth on jumbo jets have verified this scenario [relativity].’ --- Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen [1]

‘The clock in the aircraft flying towards the west records more time than the twin travelling in the opposite direction.’ --- Stephen Hawking. [2]

.
You're welcome.
.
The next time I get the chance to run opposing atomic clocks in aircraft, I'll let you know.
.
But if Stephen Hawking had anything to "say" about it, I'd have my doubts it was reliable.
.

.
I can't figure something out. 
I have no idea why I keep reading flat-earther posts expecting to find the first intelligent thing they've said.
.
Still waiting but no cigar.
.

The sun is not 93 M miles away.

.
M means a thousand in Roman Numerals.  Who said the sun is 93,000 miles away? 

I here you Neil.  It's the same argument rehashed over and over.  All the usual players are saying the same things for months.

.
Some joined CI just for this purpose and have remained just to promote flat-earthism.
They're using CathInfo as an advertising platform for their pet false-god theory, their golden-calf bad hypothesis.
It's a lot like promoting evolution or Buddhism or Satanism -- because Ps. 95,5: All the gods of the heathen are devils.